On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >
>> >> The "gfoo" type names are pleasantly terse, though I'm a
On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> The "gfoo" type names are pleasantly terse, though I'm a little unhappy
> >> about how they no longer match the prefix
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> The "gfoo" type names are pleasantly terse, though I'm a little unhappy
>> about how they no longer match the prefix of the accessor functions e.g.
>> gimple_switch_num_labels (const gsw
Hi,
On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
> The "gfoo" type names are pleasantly terse, though I'm a little unhappy
> about how they no longer match the prefix of the accessor functions e.g.
> gimple_switch_num_labels (const gswitch *gs)
> vs
> gimple_switch_num_labels (const gimple_switc
This is v4 of the patch series.
Revision history of the patch series:
v1: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01148.html
(this was the full 89-patch patch series I originally posted)
v2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01549.html
* eliminated the as_a_gimple_foo
